Divisional Representatives
Pro GE Task Force Report Comments:Posted 3/29/07 by Pablo Ortiz: This letter attempts to provide the perspective and comments of CISE on the Report of the Task Force on General Education. This is intended to inform the UGC, before the presentation of the formal proposal to the Executive Council. Jay Mechling was kind and gracious enough to attend a CISE meeting to explain the Report in detail, particularly in the area of Global Cultures. Although we agree with most of the language in the initial part of the Global Cultures section (Report of the GE Task Force, P15), our committee had serious reservations about the paragraph on P 16 stating that "learning a foreign language is another way to acquire this global sensibility". We find that 3 units of a foreign language, for example, Spanish 1, would not in fact provide any real "global cultural" content. In the Proposal for a New GE Requirement in Global Citizenship, a working draft generated by CISE in 2006 and widely circulated during this past year, there is a line, in the second paragraph, that resumes the spirit that we would like to see in the actual GE requirement: "UC Davis has a responsibility to educate its students- who eventually will live and work in all corners of the globe - as citizens not only of their home country, but the world" (my emphasis). We simply do not think that three units from a lower division language course could provide what we propose, that is, an ethical sense of being part of a transnational whole, with all the responsibilities that that implies. We would like to ask that that paragraph be removed, and that the three units of the Global Cultures requirement be satisfied in one of two ways as proposed by CISE: (a) a study abroad experience, i.e., courses offered by the UC Education Abroad Program, UC Davis Summer Abroad, UC Davis Quarter Abroad, International Internships, or non-UC study abroad programs approved for course credit. Students are encouraged to participate in study abroad programs that emphasize Global Citizenship, but any substantive and scholarly study abroad experience that provides a significant cross-cultural experience should fulfill the requirement. or (b) an approved course offered on campus (including distance learning) or internship. Courses that would qualify would be those that focus on international or transnational phenomena. This includes globalization and the movement of people and political and social movements beyond national borders. Particularly appropriate would be courses in human rights, international law, global economics, world health, world history, global politics, immigration, world agriculture, as well as, perhaps, upper division culture, film and/or literature courses in a foreign language. Posted 3/29/07 by Charles Lesher: I would like to express my support for the efforts of the GE Task Force to formulate a new plan for General Education at UC Davis. The vision is clear and the timing is right. However, like others, I have concerns about the specific ways in which requirements will be satisfied. I agree with many of my colleagues that basic instruction in a foreign language does not belong in Civic and Cultural Literacy - Global Cultures and is better placed within Literacy with Words and Images. Additionally, the current plan calls for 6 units in American Cultures and relegates 3 units to matters of international scope. While some may argue that 9 units for Civic and Cultural Literacy is insufficient, given the realities of unit caps and time-to-degree at the very least we should give our students the flexibility to choose where to place their emphasis within Civic and Cultural Literacy. One way to achieve this, as proposed by Jean-Xavier Guinard, would be to require students to take 3 units each in American Cultures and Global Cultures, and permit each student to choose how to use the remaining 3 units towards either or both categories. This would increase the opportunities for fulfilling the requirements for Civic and Cultural Literacy since many courses are already >3 units and contain content dealing with domestic, as well as, global issues. I would also like to see the Task Force reconsider the work of the Academic Senate Committee on International Study and Exchange (CISE) who produced last year a proposal for a new GE requirement in Global Citizenship. By way of history, this proposal grew out of the recommendations of the 2004 Task Force on Internationalizing the Curriculum, action items resulting from the 2005 Chancellor's Fall Conference on Internationalizing the Campus, and the hard work of the 2006 3rd Davis Honors Challenge team studying “Global Citizenship as a potential GE requirement.” The CISE proposal provides specific recommendations for fulfilling a new GE requirement focused on transnational issues that addresses many of the concerns raised in this forum about the proposed "Global Cultures" requirement . Finally, I urge the Task Force to consider renaming “Global Cultures” to “Global Citizenship” to broaden its scope beyond “cultures”, as articulated in the 3rd year DHC report, as well as, the federal Lincoln Commission and the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007 currently under consideration by Congress. Posted 3/28/07 by Julia Simon: Languages and Literatures Assembly response to the proposed changes to the General Education Requirements Present: Emily Albu, Classics; Emilio Bejel, Spanish; Bob Blake, UC Language and Learning Consortium; Chia-ning Chang, East Asian Languages and Literatures; Margie Ferguson, English; Suad Joseph, Middle East and South Asia Studies; Elisabeth Krimmer, German and Russian; Martha Macri, Native American Studies; Julia Simon, French and Italian; Chris Thaiss, University Writing Program Absent: Brenda Schildgen, Comparative Literature March 6, 2007 The Languages and Literatures Assembly commends the Task Force on General Education for the curricular revision that it has undertaken. We strongly support the Task Force’s efforts and offer these suggestions in the spirit of strengthening the commitment to well-rounded undergraduate education. We have addressed our remarks to specific passages of the circulated report. p. 3 Moreover, new imperatives have come along in the past ten years, such as the realization that universities must help create people capable of working and living in a society increasingly international in its scope and character. The Chancellor’s Conference in the fall of 2005 was devoted to “Internationalizing the Curriculum” at UCD, and the Senate’s own Committee on International Studies and Exchanges (CISE) issued a proposal in June of 2006 that a “Global Citizenship” component be added to the campus General Education Program. The Languages and Literatures Assembly strongly supports the sentiments expressed with respect to the desire to “internationalize” the curriculum. We are concerned that “global citizenship” be specifically defined as competence for cultural exchange, including learning about foreign cultures through exposure to at least one foreign language. Rather than speak of a global culture—which often evokes notions of “westernization”—we would recommend speaking about world cultures and the importance of educating students for productive cultural exchanges. p. 10 b. Writing-intensive coursework in the student’s major (3 units) The Assembly strongly supports the idea that the writing intensive requirement not be specific to English and be able to be satisfied with writing in the foreign languages. p. 13 d. Oral skills coursework or additional writing-intensive coursework within or outside the student’s major (3 units) Courses certified for “oral literacy” should include some instruction in public speaking. The instruction should pay attention to the elements of good speaking, which would include preparation, delivery, organization, clarity, and similar elements in persuasion. The Languages and Literatures Assembly fully endorses the Task Force’s commitment to oral skills and suggests broadening the skill category to “effective oral communication skills” more generally. Rather than stress oral presentations and public speaking exclusively, the requirement could encompass effective communication in other forms. For example, many foreign language courses stress effective communication in small-group work, multiple informal class presentations as opposed to formal presentations, and even one-on-one competency testing with instructors. Some foreign language courses incorporate the performance of skits and plays. Finally, some foreign languages offer courses aimed at conversation skills. For example, Spanish 8 (Elementary Spanish Conversation) is designed to develop oral communication skills with an emphasis on increasing vocabulary, improving listening comprehension, pronunciation, accuracy and grammar control. It includes practice of everyday situations. These types of skills might be used to broaden the understanding of oral skills and enable more courses to satisfy the requirement. The Assembly would also suggest that the proposed number of “presentations,” i.e., at least two, should be more flexibly applied to accommodate the realities of student enrollment and other pedagogical necessities. We fear that some of our classes with sizable enrollment (say 40-50) may not make two presentations of any substance by each student a realistic option. Above all, the Assembly recommends flexibility in interpreting this requirement, including the frequency of oral presentation to accommodate specific pedagogical needs. p. 14 Visual literacy coursework (3 units) The Assembly endorses this suggestion and would like for the Task Force to specify what percentage of course materials would need to be dedicated to “visual materials” in order to satisfy the requirement. For example, in many courses within HArCS majors, visual materials (film, print media, fine art, etc.) are treated in a critical manner, but are not the sole focus of the course. We would encourage the Task Force to allow courses with substantial visual content—however that could be defined and assessed—to satisfy the requirement. p. 15 b. Global Cultures (3 units) The objective is to create citizens who can live comfortably and productively in a world where communication technologies, economic relationships, and the flow of people across national borders increasingly challenge national identities and create transnational, global cultures. The faculty affirms that an educated person has a cosmopolitan rather than a parochial, perspective on the world. An educated person can work and socialize with people from other cultures in ways that convey to the other person an informed, respectful understanding of the other person’s worldview. The Languages and Literatures Assembly recommends increasing the unit requirement from 3 to 6 units to create parity with the proposed American Cultures, Governance, and History requirement. We believe that knowledge of the rest of the world is at least as important as knowledge of the United States for the college-educated person. We recommend changing the above language to the following: b. World Cultures (6 units) The objective is to create citizens who can live productively and meaningfully in a world where communication technologies, economic relationships, and the flow of people across national borders challenge national identities and create transnational, world cultures. The faculty affirms that an educated person has a cosmopolitan rather than a parochial, perspective on the world. An educated person has intercultural communicative competence and is capable of engaging in meaningful exchange with people from other cultures in ways that convey to the other person an informed, respectful understanding of the person’s worldview. p. 16 Learning a foreign language is another way to acquire this global sensibility. Even the introductory foreign language courses bear a significant amount of cultural knowledge, so these courses should count as meeting the requirement. If a student is ready to take a more advanced foreign language class, having met the prerequisites through high school courses or through examination, then the student can meet this requirement with an advanced conversation course or a course in literature and culture taught in that foreign language. The Assembly agrees with the spirit of the requirement and would hope that students in L&S completing the A.B. and B.A.S. degrees be required to complete an additional 3 units beyond the one year required by the college. In order to truly acquire a “global sensibility,” the Assembly recommends study of a foreign language into the second year. p. 16 Some courses in the natural sciences could meet this requirement if there is sufficient attention in the course to globalization issues (for example, in environmental issues or world agriculture). The Assembly respectfully suggests that allowing natural science courses to satisfy this requirement may be tantamount to opening a loophole. We recommend deleting this paragraph. p. 16 Enrollment impact The Assembly foresees the necessity of increasing funding to graduate student support to increase the number of TAs able to teach these courses, as well as courses that require significant feedback on written assignments. The burden of Non-Resident Tuition and Fees weighs disproportionately heavily on the foreign language departments. We strongly urge appropriate levels of support for this worthwhile initiative. Finally, more generally, the Language and Literatures Assembly noted that most requirements are for 3 units. However, most current classes are 4 units. We are concerned about the unintended consequence of having students leave 4-unit courses in favor of 3-unit courses in order to meet the requirements. We are especially concerned with the accumulation of credits (if they take 4-unit classes) that might impact student graduation rates. We fully understand and endorse the spirit in which the 3 unit requirement was created, but want to prevent flight from existing 4-unit courses. Posted 3/23/07 by Susan Mann, Chair, History: The History faculty emphasizes writing in our courses, and all of us, to varying degrees, include in each course some sort of writing guide or guidelines for the preparation of one or more substantial papers. Teaching students to write well organized and properly documented analytical essays, using primary sources and secondary sources, is one of our most important goals. Moreover, as a department we are “transnational,” and our major requirements are designed to draw students across areas and cultures. We already benefit greatly from the present GE requirements’ emphasis on writing and on diversity. Most of us were also positively disposed toward improving the GE requirements. 1. Opportunistically, the department views proposals to upgrade writing requirements as a way to capture more resources for TAs who will need to be specially trained in writing in order to teach the numerous small classes demanded by the requirements. In other words, if the writing requirements result in increased investment in graduate student training and teaching experience, with the expanded support for graduate students this implies, the department can certainly find ways to take advantage of these enhanced writing requirement proposals. All of this presumes greatly increased investment by the university in training to teach these classes, and in staffing for the classes themselves. For example, adding such a substantial writing requirement would virtually require adding TAs to upper-division lecture courses and also reducing the size of sections in lower-division courses, in order to meet the specifications for TA hours in union contracts. (Caveat: We are not certain we have enough graduate students to meet that combined demand.) Posted 3/20/07 by Jean-Xavier Guinard: The proposed GE Requirement is guided by very sound philosophical and logistical principles, but changes are needed in its articulation and implementation, namely:
Here is why and how I propose to make those changes. The current GE requirement clearly had to be reformed because it is not meeting current expectations for our students’ general education. The rhetoric of the report is powerful and convincing. I add my thanks to those already given to the Task Force for its efforts on behalf of our faculty. The redesign of the Topical Breadth component is logical and it will meet the needs of our students in areas other than their major(s) more adequately. The Core Literacies Component is innovative and timely, but changes are needed in its articulation and implementation. I applaud the inclusion of a Visual Literacy category. It is most appropriate for the society our graduates will work and live in. I strongly believe that the Oral Skills category should stand alone (rather than having additional writing-intensive coursework as an alternative). It is critical that our students graduate with solid oral communication skills – an area not adequately covered in K-12. But the international and global competency of our students is what concerns me with the proposed reform. Countless reports state that SOME FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY must be acquired by all university graduates. I strongly feel that a foreign language category (3 units) must be added to our UC entry requirement, in the Literacy with Words and Images, ideally as a SUBSTITUTE for component (c) Additional writing-intensive coursework in English, or at least as an ALTERNATIVE for it. Under Civic and Cultural Literacy, the proposed plan has students take 6 units in (a) American Cultures, Governance, and History, and 3 units in (b) Global Cultures. May I first suggest renaming the latter ‘Global Culture’ or ‘World Cultures’ to accurately capture its intended meaning? Let us then agree that we want our students to be aware of, and understand, the cultural diversity around them, both locally and globally. As a result, let us RENAME THIS COMPONENT Local to Global Civic and Cultural Literacy, and let us BUILD SOME FLEXIBILITY into the requirement. We should have our students TAKE 3 UNITS EACH in the (a) American Cultures, Governance, and History and (b) Global Culture categories, and then CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO CATEGORIES FOR THE REMAINING 3 UNITS. My last suggestion has to do with the implementation of the Global Culture requirement. Taking a foreign language course should NOT be a way to meet it. As stated above, foreign language proficiency belongs in the Literacy with Words and Images component. That would make A COURSE WITH A SIGNIFICANT INTERNATIONAL COMPONENT or A STUDY ABROAD EXPERIENCE the two options for meeting the Global Culture requirement. This, by the way, is what our Academic Senate Committee on International Studies and Exchanges and the Task Force on Internationalizing the Curriculum already proposed THREE TIMES, in 2003, 2004 and 2006 (and I would encourage our students and my colleagues to visit or revisit those proposals on the Academic Senate Web Site). Please note that the changes I propose do not alter the unit counts in each component of the GE Requirement nor the total number of units. Finally, I concur with Prof. Holoman that the ‘Neutral’, ‘Pro’ and ‘Con’ categories are hardly appropriate here. I am ‘Pro-reform’, ‘Con-a couple of elements of the report’ and definitely not ‘Neutral’. We were asked to comment on the report, not to vote on it. Appendix – Revised Proposed GE Requirement A. Topical Breadth Component ................................................ 52 units Posted 3/07/07 by Susan Lieu: I didn't have enough time to thoroughly look at the page so I'm not sure if there's another way that I can vote for this new GE proposal. I'm a fourth year (B.S.) undergraduate at Davis and believe that the college curriculum can use some improvement. Depending on the student's interest and personal goals, they can shape their own college experience and make the most of what they choose to fulfill. I believe that the UC provides many resources to prepare students for a career or be better citizens, however, if there's anything that public schools can do is help develop even more well-rounded students by providing direction. I believe that this change won't hurt, if not enhance a student's growth. Posted 2/22/07 by Norm Matloff: I wish to make two comments: Posted 2/22/07 by D. Kern Holoman: I applaud the careful rethinking of the General Education scheme at UCDavis, worked out with such vision by Leon Mayhew and his task forces some three decades ago. It is good to acknowledge and address the difficulties of the plan as it has evolved, especially in the teaching of writing of English prose, and as the character of our daily life as educated citizens has changed. But I wonder about the so-obviously privileged category of visual culture, in a society where nearly 100% of our students have plastic in their ears at some point during the day. It strikes me, then, that that any new requirement or recommendation along those lines should concern visual /and aural/ culture.
Posted 2/16/07 by Carolyn Thomas de la Pena: I support the revision, particularly the requirement that all students, regardless of AP credit, take a university course in American history/goverment/cultures. It troubles me that so many of our students receive credit for high school AP courses right now as I see this as one of the primary charges of university instruction: creating capable citizens. I also support the specific suggestion of a University Writing Center where coordinated instruction on writing, across the disciplines, could take place. I see a need to revise this document to better balance core skills in the humanities/social sciences with those in the sciences. Visual literacy, for instance, could be gained in introductory science courses were the emphasis specifically on the relationship between quantitative vs. visual information, for instance. Science and Technology Studies also seems an ideal place for students to acquire this skill set. I wonder if "oral skills" couldn't be reconsidered here. It currently privileges "public speaking" as a practice of organizing and delivering information to a group of listeners. It seems the GE revision is driven by the necessity of educating students to think and collaborate within a complex world. Why not also give students credit for this requirement if they participate in discussion courses where students learn to articulate their ideas, listen to others, and, as a result, refine their thinking? I want to thank the committee members for their hard work on what must have been a significant undertaking. Posted 2/14/07 by Roy H. Doi: I basically agree with the proposal for the GE program, but would like to make three points. Although I was an undergraduate science student at UC Berkeley, the courses that most influenced my life were Philosophy 6A and 6B. Those courses taught me to to think rationally and logically. From that experience and from my contact for the last 40 years with undergraduate students (UG), I would like to express my thoughts on GE: Please send your letters as text in the body of an email to gina.anderson@ucdavis.edu. Include any supporting documentation as an attachment or link. Please indicate which category your email should be posted in: Neutral, Pro, or Con. To see posted comments click the links below:
Back to GE Task Force Report Main Page |